BioAug Method of Applying Dehalococcoides Microbes under Pay-for-Performance Contracting
Dave Philbrook, BioAug, Raleigh, NC

Managing Large Portfolios of Concurrent Pay-for-Performance Projects
Charlie Hursh, SICO Petroleum, Mt. Joy, PA

Converting Time and Material Projects to Pay-for-Performance
Jesse Brown, PE, Golder Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, FL

Pay-for-Performance Contracting Under the Massachusetts LSP Program
Carl Shapiro, LSP, Wheatstone Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Braintree, MA  

New Case Studies in Performance Based Technology Substitutions
Ron Adams, ERFS, Ponte Vedra, FL  

Use of Advanced Instrumentation for Field Delivery of Pay-for-Performance In Situ Remediation Projects

Mark Vigneri, Environmental Remediation and Financial Services, LLC (ERFS), 2150 Highway 35, Suite 250, Sea Girt, NJ 08750, Tel: 732-974-3570, Fax: 732-974-3571, Email: mvigneri@erfs.com

Instrumentation for determining the quality of groundwater and the condition of soil has been evolving to support site delineation proposes for decades.  The innovations in these areas are directed towards making delineation more accurate.  In relation to actual remediation operations, the general theory has been that more accurate delineations produce more efficient remediations.

Unfortunately this is not true statement.  Correlations between site data and remedial operations are qualitative, not quantitative.  Even pilot test data is not transferable to the performance of full scale remediation, unless variables are so limited to allow such.

To address such deficiencies inherent in site data, real-time methods of instrumentation and control are needed to complete soil and groundwater remediations in an efficient manner.  To design a remediation method to address unknown variables, a volumetric approach is needed.  Using principles from the On-Contact Remediation Process® Model  (founded in 1998) as a way to manage many simultaneous remediation processes with sets of rules to interconnect physical, chemical and / or biological technologies, instrumentation is a key to real-time control of application of a remedial designs.   

This presentation will concentrate on instrumentation used to interconnect many physical technologies including Propagations SM, ConductivPlanz SM, and Programmable Release Processors (PRPs) SM, Laterals SM and SIPs SM with many types of chemicals and biological remediation materials being injected into the subsurface.

Case studies to be presented include the use of gas analysis matrices, fiber optic detection, and matching insitu chemical modeling with markers. Additionally, a discussion of the first commercial uses of, Signature SM, a surface grid detection system for simultaneous mapping of subsurface physical devices and the flow of reagents in the subsurface is included.

Concepts from this presentation are a continuation of 2003’s Application Theory & Practice of Pay-for-Performance Remediation and 2004’s presentation on the three generations of insitu chemical remediation.

Converting Time and Material Projects to Pay-for-Performance

Jesse Brown, Golder Associates Inc, 8933 Western Way, Suite 12 , Jacksonville , FL 32256 , Tel: 904-363-3430, Email: jcbrown@golder.com
Ron Adams, ERFS, LLC, 830-13 A1A North, #371, Ponte Vedra, FL 32082, Tel: 904-280-2596, Email: radams@erfs.com

In May 2000, Golder Associates Inc. installed a multi-phase extraction (MPX) system at a retail petroleum site in Altamonte Springs, Florida to address petroleum impacted soil and groundwater.  The MPX system began operating in January, 2001 and operated for 3.5 years at approximately 82 percent operation efficiency.  During the first two months of operation, the system removed 115 pounds of petroleum contaminants per day from the vapor phase.  The contaminant removal rate declined to approximately 8 pounds per day within 6 months and leveled off at that rate for the next 12 months.  During this time period, dramatic reductions in groundwater concentrations occurred across a large portion of the site.  The MPX system contaminant removal rates ranged from 1 to 4 pounds per day during the last 18 months of operation with minimal reduction in contaminant concentrations across the site.  Prior to the MPX operation, the baseline average BTEX concentration of the four most impacted monitoring wells was 22,275 micrograms per liter (mg/l).  After 3.5 years of MPX remediation, the groundwater plume was reduced in size from approximately 18,000 square feet to approximately 9,500 square feet and the average BTEX concentration of the same four wells dropped from 22,275 mg/l to 2,490 mg/l. 

After 3.5 years of MPX operation, reductions in BTEX concentrations were noted in most site wells, with the exception of two monitoring wells located between the existing Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and dispensers.  Golder Associates Inc. completed additional assessment between the USTs and the dispensers in September 2003.  A 2 to 4-foot thick layer of clay was identified at a depth of 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) under the dispensers, building canopy, and USTs.  Three additional wells were installed under the canopy and a Remedial Action Modification Plan (RAMP) was prepared to address the area of the site not effectively influenced by the MPX system.  The RAMP proposed a source removal along with the UST upgrades and in-situ chemical oxidation injections underneath the canopy.  Upon approval of the RAMP in June 2004, Golder Associates Inc. began the source removal in October 2004 and the chemical oxidation effort in November 2004.  Environmental Remediation and Financial Services, LLC (ERFS) has completed 8 applications during an 8 month period and the average concentration of BTEX in the  area being treated has decreased from 2,770 mg/l to 279 mg/l.

Remediation techniques applied at the site include MPX system operation, source removal along with dewatering during UST replacement; and several applications of in-situ chemical oxidation.  The paper will include an analysis of contaminant mass removal rates, plume size reduction, and projected versus actual costs to date.  Furthermore, the rationale for remedial alternative selection and pay-for-performance contracting will be reviewed for each sequence of the site cleanup.

Pay-for-Performance Contracting Under the Massachusetts LSP Program

Carl Shapiro, Wheatstone Engineering & Consulting, Inc., 220 Forbes Road, Suite 405 , Braintree , MA 02184 , Tel: 781-380-0600, Fax: 781-380-0601, Email: cshapiro@wheatstonecorp.com

In 1993, the Commonwealth modified the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) that regulates management of hazardous waste sites, to a privatized system of licensed hazardous waste site decision-makers. LSPs provide these services in Massachusetts to Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at disposal sites with reportable OHM releases.

The MCP provides a well-defined timeline of goals and documentation submittals to DEP of assessment, containment and remediation actions through site closure. It’s focal point is achieving timely cleanup of a site’s environment. For the PRP and LSP, money is also a key driving force. Pay-for-Performance remediation allows a PRP financing a site cleanup to reach well-defined cleanup performance goals within preset time periods, agreed upon with the LSP during contract negotiation. It also offers assurances which cap the PRP’s remediation costs if those milestones are not achieved, where the LSP will modify/step up the technology at no additional cost to the PRP. With this approach, the LSP is held accountable by the PRP for MCP compliance timelines, and agreed-upon performance and cost milestones.

One problem evidenced is that several sites have languished in the system without conducting response actions to achieve MCP site cleanup goals, falling off the regulatory timeline. In 2004, DEP announced an enforcement effort to address these disposal sites. The Pay-for-Performance approach, when combined with in-situ chemical redox remediation and bioremediation polishing technologies, provides the framework of a win-win scenario for the PRP, LSP and Massachusetts DEP. This path clearly sets performance, time and cost goals to achieve site closure within regulatory timelines, without cost surprises. PRPs, whose sites have languished in “trial-and-error” remediation approaches, but now want to achieve site closure in a relatively short time, can use this well-defined approach with clearly defined performance and cost milestones.

New Case Studies in Performance Based Technology Substitutions

Ron Adams, ERFS, LLC, 830-13 A1A North, #371, Ponte Vedra, FL  32082, Tel: 904-280-2596, Fax: 904-280-2597, Email: radams@erfs.com

Remediation engineers, scientists, regulators, and site owners are well aware of the asymptotic trends observed for contaminant concentrations as most remediation efforts approach the end of their effective life-span.  In fact, it is more typical than not that even well designed remediation systems reach a point when affected area contaminant concentrations have diminished in extent and magnitude; however one or more monitoring points consistently remain above the site cleanup goals.  In most cases, continued operation of the remediation system does not produce the desired contaminant removal needed to achieve goals.  In the end, the consultant, regulator, and site owner are faced with costs of $10,000 to $50,000 or more each year to continue operating and monitoring a system which may take many more years to achieve goals.  In-situ treatment of the remaining affected areas can lead to rapid decreases in petroleum compounds, chlorinated solvents, and in some cases, metals.

This presentation will discuss the history and status of multiple sites (petroleum PAP and PBC and chlorinated solvent sites) around the country where this approach has been utilized.  In all cases the project goals are being met and several of the sites have been granted SRCOs. Rapid reductions were achieved through the use of complimentary in-situ processes including chemical oxidation and stimulation and maintenance of microbial processes to promote and enhance biodegradation.  The in-situ techniques are specifically designed and structured to achieve complete site remediation within the shortest possible time frame by employing cost effective in-situ technologies. 

Specifically, the presentation will illustrate the approaches used at petroleum sites (four gas stations and one bulk storage facility in Florida ; an airline maintenance hanger in Syracuse ; and a plastics plant in Boston ) and chlorinated solvent sites (two commercial sites in Florida and one industrial site in New Jersey ).  In most cases, the existing remediation structures were used or modified for treatment applications to minimize costs.  Lastly, these techniques can be applied under pay for performance contracts which caps the total cost and limits the owner’s financial risk by paying for results as results are achieved.

Top